Compiler.next: A Search-Based Compiler to Power the AI-Native Future of Software Engineering

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.24799
• Title: Compiler.next: A Search-Based Compiler to Power the AI-Native Future of Software Engineering
• Authors: Filipe R. Cogo (Huawei Canada), Gustavo A. Oliva (Huawei Canada), Ahmed E. Hassan (Queen's University)
• Category: cs.SE (Software Engineering)
• Publication Date: October 2025 (Manuscript submitted to ACM)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.24799

Abstract

This paper proposes Compiler.next, a search-based compiler designed to support AI-native software systems in the Software Engineering 3.0 era. Unlike traditional static compilers, Compiler.next accepts human-written intent and automatically generates working software by searching for optimal solutions. The process involves dynamic optimization of cognitive architectures and their components (such as prompts, foundation model configurations, and system parameters), while finding optimal trade-offs among multiple objectives including accuracy, cost, and latency. The paper outlines the architecture of Compiler.next and positions it as a cornerstone for democratizing software development by lowering technical barriers, enabling scalable, adaptive, and reliable AI-driven software.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Context

1. Limitations of Existing AI-Assisted Software Engineering:
   • Developers face cognitive overload
   • Low tool integration efficiency
   • Narrow AI copilot capabilities
2. Evolution of Software Engineering Paradigms:
   • SE 1.0: Manual programming era
   • SE 2.0: Machine learning-assisted era
   • SE 3.0: AI-native era with seamless human-AI collaboration
3. Complexity of FMware (Foundation Model Software):
   • More than simple encapsulation of foundation models
   • Includes complex components such as configuration, data collection, RAG systems, data validation, and analytics tools
   • Requires continuous evolution in response to feedback data

Research Motivation

• Traditional compiler design is intended for static environments and cannot handle real-time adaptation requirements of AI-driven systems
• A new compiler infrastructure is needed to support transformation from intent to optimized FMware
• Enable truly intent-driven development, allowing developers to focus on "what to do" rather than "how to do it"

Core Contributions

1. Proposed Compiler.next Architecture: A search-based compiler framework capable of compiling human intent into optimized FMware
2. Defined FMware Program Representation: Modular combinations including Promptware and Agentware
3. Designed Multi-Objective Optimization Mechanism: Simultaneously optimizing competing objectives such as accuracy, latency, and cost
4. Established 10 Calls to Action: Providing a systematic roadmap for SE 3.0 compiler development
5. Implemented Proof of Concept: Validated system feasibility on the HumanEval-Plus benchmark
6. Provided Semantic Caching Mechanism: Significantly improving compilation efficiency and reducing costs

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: Human-written intent (natural language description of software requirements) Output: Optimized FMware program (containing prompt templates, cognitive architecture configuration, system parameters, etc.) Constraints: Multi-objective optimization (trade-offs between accuracy, latency, and cost)

Model Architecture

1. Technical Stack Components

• Cognitive Exploration Optimizer: Intelligently drives the search process using techniques such as self-reflection
• Prompt Rewriter: Enhances and refines prompt structure
• Architecture Explorer: Searches for optimal configurations of RAG parameters and cognitive architecture patterns
• Scenario Expander: Extends the optimization environment through synthetic scenario generation
• Search Optimizer: Improves search efficiency by leveraging historical compilation trajectories
• Distributed Synthesis Runtime: Accelerates the synthesis process using distributed platforms
• Synthesizer Observability Engine: Supports debugging and traceability

2. Search Mechanism

1. Instantiate FMware Components → 2. Generate Specific Configuration → 3. Execute Inference
     ↑                                                                          ↓
6. Heuristic Approximator ← 5. Record Best Configuration ← 4. Error Estimator

Key Steps:

1. Template Filling: Instantiate placeholders in prompt templates with problem instance information
2. Publish FM Inference: Execute instantiated prompts using the published FM to generate result candidates
3. Evaluate FM Assessment: Assess the quality of result candidates using the evaluation FM
4. Self-Reflection (Optional): Generate reasoning feedback on how to improve prompt templates
5. Aggregate Evaluation Scores: Compute overall fitness scores across multiple problem instances
6. Select Candidates: Select high-quality templates based on evaluation scores
7. Crossover Mutation: Generate new candidates through FM-guided operations

3. Conceptual Model

• Operation: Represents components of FMware programs, containing static and dynamic parameters
• Optimizer: Pluggable components specifying how to optimize Operation parameters
• EvaluationBench: Defines the gold label format and evaluation logic used in the optimization process

Technical Innovations

1. Multi-Objective Pareto Optimization: Uses NSGA-II algorithm to simultaneously optimize competing objectives rather than simple weighted combinations
2. Semantic Caching Mechanism: Cache based on embedding similarity, balancing compilation speed and search space exploration
3. Separation of Concerns: Separates intent (what to implement) from implementation (optimized prompts and configuration)
4. Composable Architecture: Supports joint optimization of multiple interdependent FMware components

Experimental Setup

Datasets

• HumanEval-Plus: Python programming task benchmark containing function signatures and docstrings
• Data Split: 70% as gold labels to guide optimization, 30% for evaluation

Evaluation Metrics

1. Accuracy: Proportion of generated solutions passing unit tests
2. Latency: Runtime required to evaluate candidate solutions
3. Execution Cost: Number of tokens consumed per run (input + output)

Comparison Methods

• Initial Synthesis Prompt vs Optimized Prompt
• With Cache vs Without Cache compilation performance

Implementation Details

• Search Algorithm: NSGA-II multi-objective genetic algorithm
• Population Size: 10 candidate solutions per task
• Iteration Count: 5 generations
• Similarity Threshold: 0.85 (Euclidean distance)
• Test Models: Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct and GPT-4o-mini

Experimental Results

Main Results

Caching Mechanism Effects

Experimental Findings

1. Significant Performance Improvement: Optimized prompts show substantial improvements in both accuracy and efficiency
2. Caching Trade-offs: Semantic caching significantly reduces compilation time but may limit search diversity
3. Model Adaptability: The method is effective for foundation models of different scales

Related Work

Traditional Compilers

• GCC, LLVM: Static compilation with deterministic optimization
• Limitations: Cannot adapt to dynamic AI-driven environments

Deep Learning Compilers

• TVM, XLA, Glow: Focus on tensor operations and hardware optimization
• Limitations: Limited to predefined neural network architectures, lacking high-level abstraction support

Prompt Compilers

• APE: Natural language program synthesis approach
• Promptbreeder: Self-improving search process
• EvoPrompt: Evolutionary algorithm for prompt optimization
• ProTeGi: Simulating gradient descent optimization
• SAMMO: Symbolic prompt program representation
• DSPy: End-to-end FMware program optimization
• TextGrad: Backpropagation-based optimization

Ten Calls to Action

FMware Program Representation

1. Establish Quality Programming Constructs: Establish semantic constructs for representing FMware programs
2. End-to-End FMware Optimization: Go beyond isolated prompt template optimization

Computational Performance

3. Effective Search Heuristics: Identify prompt features and FMware parameters that influence FM output
4. Efficiency Improvement and Cost Reduction: Develop techniques to reduce latency and improve compilation throughput

Result Validation

4. Gold Label Construction: Create high-quality, independent data points
5. Quality Range Estimation: Calculate the probability that FMware executes within quality thresholds
6. Reproducible Compilation: Achieve reproducibility of the compilation process

User Priorities and Objectives

8. User-Defined Optimization Objectives: Support flexible multi-objective optimization
9. Inter-Compiler Interoperability: Ensure interoperability between different compilers
10. Community Sharing of Compilation Trajectories: Establish a platform for sharing compilation trajectories

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Compiler.next Successfully Achieved Automatic Compilation from Intent to FMware
2. Multi-Objective Optimization Effectively Balances Accuracy, Latency, and Cost
3. Semantic Caching Mechanism Significantly Improves Compilation Efficiency
4. The Method Provides a New Paradigm for Software Development in the SE 3.0 Era

Limitations

1. Current Implementation Primarily Targets Single Promptware Components: Optimization of complex multi-component FMware requires further research
2. Gold Label Dependency: Requires high-quality evaluation datasets, which may limit applicability
3. Reproducibility Challenges: Non-deterministic FM behavior makes fully reproducible compilation challenging
4. Search Space Explosion: Search space may become intractable as the number of components increases

Future Directions

1. Hierarchical Optimization Strategies: Develop methods for staged optimization of complex FMware components
2. Adaptive Caching Strategies: Dynamically adjust similarity thresholds to balance efficiency and diversity
3. Cross-Framework Interoperability: Establish standardized intermediate representation for FMware
4. Quality Assurance Mechanisms: Develop more robust FMware quality assessment methods

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Innovation: First systematic intent compilation framework, providing theoretical foundation for SE 3.0
2. High Practical Value: Addresses real pain points in FMware development with clear application prospects
3. Strong Systematicity: Provides not only technical solutions but also a comprehensive research roadmap
4. Sufficient Validation: Proof of concept demonstrates method feasibility and effectiveness
5. Clear Writing: Well-structured paper with detailed technical descriptions, easy to understand and reproduce

Weaknesses

1. Limited Evaluation Scope: Validation only on code generation tasks, lacking evaluation on other task types
2. Unknown Scalability: Handling capability for large-scale, complex FMware systems remains unverified
3. Insufficient Cost Analysis: While cost optimization is mentioned, detailed cost-benefit analysis is lacking
4. Integration with Existing Tools: Discussion on integration with existing development toolchains is insufficient

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Introduces new research directions and theoretical frameworks to software engineering
2. Industrial Value: Likely to advance development of AI-native software development tools
3. Standardization Promotion: May facilitate establishment of FMware development standards and best practices
4. Community Building: Ten calls to action provide clear research agenda for the research community

Applicable Scenarios

1. AI-Native Application Development: Particularly suitable for applications requiring extensive prompt engineering
2. Low-Code/No-Code Platforms: Enables software development capabilities for non-technical users
3. Rapid Prototyping: Supports rapid transformation from ideas to working software
4. FMware Maintenance and Optimization: Assists in continuous optimization and evolution of existing FMware systems

References

The paper includes 94 references covering important works in software engineering, machine learning, compiler design, search algorithms, and other domains, providing a solid theoretical foundation for the research.

Overall Assessment: This is an excellent paper with forward-looking and systematic characteristics. It not only proposes innovative technical solutions but, more importantly, provides a clear vision and roadmap for the future development of software engineering. While further refinement is needed in certain aspects, its core ideas and framework design open new possibilities for software engineering practice in the AI era.